An Iowa couple has stepped forward with an editorial in the Des Moines Register and a video produced by the Iowa Family Policy Center, both claiming that their son was recruited by homosexuals and later died from AIDS because of it.

From the editorial:

The single most tragic event in our years together has been the untimely death of our oldest son, Randy. Our firstborn was a blessing that brought so much joy into our lives. He was extremely smart, he participated in extracurricular activities, graduated with many honors and went on to college. After college, he moved to Omaha and took a job. It was while he was living in Omaha that one of Randy’s co-workers recruited him into the homosexual “lifestyle.”

We loved our son as much as any parents have ever loved a son. Even when we became aware of his homosexuality, we assured him of our love. That is not to say that we condoned or accepted what we knew to be a dangerous “lifestyle,” but we always maintained our relationship with the son we had raised and the man we prayed would be delivered from homosexuality.

…

It was interesting to note that once Randy was diagnosed HIV positive, the homosexual community who had actively recruited him and had claimed to be his “family” were nowhere to be found. As his health declined, he spoke frankly about the homosexual experience. Randy said, “It is not an alternate lifestyle. It is a cult.”

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qw9sKC7yZpE[/youtube]

While I can’t help but have sympathy for their loss, the notion their son was “recruited by homosexuals” is ridiculous, and eagerly await Randy’s friends to step forward and dispute the charge. I also feel sorry for them, allowing a group like the Iowa Family Policy Center  use them to further their own anti-gay agenda.

It’s official. After a contentious few weeks same-sex couples began marrying in Iowa today, despite the actions of anti-gay activists who delivered petitions demanding state offices refuse to issue licenses to gay couples. But so far the day has proceeded without incident, many couples hoping to have the mandatory 3-day waiting period waived so they can exchange their vows today.

Watch:

Congratulations to our brothers and sisters in Iowa!

Iowa officials have confirmed that Iowa State Senator Matt McCoy received a death threat by telephone on Monday. Iowa’s first and only gay lawmaker, McCoy has been a vocal supporter of the Iowa Supreme Court’s recent ruling on gay marriage, and the threat comes in the midst of protests for and against marriage equality at the state capital.

From the Des Moines Register:

Security was heavy at the Capitol again Monday as supporters of traditional marriage rallied outside the building, then came inside to lobby lawmakers. They want lawmakers to take steps against an April 3 Iowa Supreme Court ruling that legalized same-sex marriage in Iowa.

Below is a message from Senator McCoy after the gay marriage ruling…

Marriage equality in Iowa? Folks, maybe it’s time give Iowa a try. I’m reminded of the clip from Music Man below…

I guess they are not so stubborn after all.

From the DesMoines Register…

Today’s decision makes Iowa the first Midwestern state, and the third in the country, to allow same-sex marriages. Lambda Legal, a gay rights group, financed the court battle and represented six couples who challenged Iowa’s 10-year-old ban on gay marriage.

Supreme Court Justice Mark Cady, who wrote the unanimous decision, at one point invoked the court’s first-ever decision, in 1839, which struck down slavery laws 17 years before the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the right of a slave owner to treat a person as property.

Iowa’s gay marriage ban “is unconstitutional, because the county has been unable to identify a constitutionally adequate justification for excluding plaintiffs from the institution of civil marriage,” Cady wrote in the 69-page opinion that seemed to dismiss the concept of civil unions as an option for gay couples.

The ruling also addresses the religious concerns of those against gay marriage…

“Our constitution does not permit any branch of government to resolve these types of religious debates and entrusts to courts the task of ensuring that government avoids them,” the opinion says.

The ruling explicitly does not affect “the freedom of a religious organization to define marriage it solemnizes as unions between a man and a woman,” the justices stressed.

It’s a great day to be from I-o-wa!